alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Certificate of Trust



  Exhibit 4.3 
   
 SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED 
 CERTIFICATE OF TRUST 
 OF 
 BANK ONE CAPITAL III 
  
 THIS
Second Amended and Restated Certificate of Trust of BANK ONE Capital III (the “Trust”) is being duly executed and filed by the undersigned, as trustee, to amend and restate the original Certificate of Trust of the Trust (the
“Certificate of Trust”), which was filed with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware (the “Secretary of State”) on June 16, 1999, as amended and restated by the Amended and Restated Certificate of Trust of the Trust,
which was filed with the Secretary of State on August 1, 2000, under the Delaware Statutory Trust Act (12 Del. C. § 3801, et seq.) (the “Act”). 
  
 1. Name. The name of the statutory trust is BANK ONE Capital III. 
  
 2. Delaware Trustee. The name and business address of the trustee of
the Trust in the State of Delaware is The Bank of New York (Delaware), White Clay Center, Route 273, Newark, Delaware 19711. 
  
 3. Effective Date. This Second Amended and Restated Certificate of Trust shall be effective upon filing. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being a trustee of the Trust, has duly
executed this Second Amended and Restated Certificate of Trust as of the              day of             , 2004, in
accordance with Section 3811(a) of the Act. 
  

			
		
	By:	 	 
	 	 	 Name: Laurence Goldman

	 	 	 Title:   Regular Trustee
#### Willie Lee FRANKLIN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 37180.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 18, 1964.

No attorney of record on appeal for appellant.

*932Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Presiding Judge.

The conviction is for negligent homicide in the second degree; the punishment, a fine of $3000.

We have not been favored with a brief in appellant’s behalf.

The unlawful act relied upon by the state was the violation of Art. 6701d, Sec. 52, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St., which requires motor vehicles to be driven on the right half of the road except under those circumstances enumerated in the statute.

The information appears to comply with this Court’s holding in Martinez v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 8, 288 S.W.2d 787.

The somewhat voluminous record reveals that appellant was driving a tractor truck with a butane trailer on a highway west of Victoria. It had been raining. On a curve the truck sideswiped a pickup truck traveling on its side of the highway in the opposite direction, and thereafter collided head-on with an Oldsmobile auto also traveling in the opposite direction. The Oldsmobile was propelled backwards some 222 feet and its four women passengers died as a result of the collision.

Testimony of state witnesses shows that appellant lost control of his vehicle while traveling approximately 60 miles per hour in a 45 mile zone and that the truck skidded to the left half of the highway, collided momentarily with a Central Power & Light Company service truck, and then met the second automobile head-on.

Appellant, as a witness in his own behalf, testified that he maintained control of his vehicle at all times prior to the collision with the service truck, and that his vehicle then “jackknifed” and collided with the Oldsmobile occupied by the four ladies who were killed. Appellant denied that he was speeding at the time of the collision with the service truck.

The jury chose to believe the state’s witnesses.

That appellant may not have been in control of his vehicle at the time would be no defense to the unlawful act of driving on the left side of the highway. Patterson v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 482, 293 S.W.2d 656; Kirkland v. State, 162 Tex. Cr.R. 424, 285 S.W.2d 743.

The judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit 99.1 Officer Certification

CERTIFICATION


I, Jon A. Darmstadter, certify that:

  (1) I have  reviewed  this  quarterly  report  on Form  10-Q  of Zkid  Network
Company.
  (2) Based on my knowledge,  this quarterly  report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact  necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the  circumstances  under which such statements
were made, not  misleading  with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;
  (3) Based on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements  and  other  financial
information  included in this quarterly  report,  fairly present in all material
respects the financial  condition,  results of operations  and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;
  (4) The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers and I are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:
         (a) designed  such  disclosure  controls and  procedures to ensure that
material  information  relating to the  registrant,  including its  consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,  particularly
during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;
         (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
and  procedures  as of a date  within 90 days prior to the  filing  date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
         (c)  presented  in this  quarterly  report  our  conclusions  about the
effectiveness of the disclosure  controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;
  (5) The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed,  based on
our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee
of  registrant's  board of  directors  (or  persons  performing  the  equivalent
functions):
         (a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls  which  could  adversely  affect  the  registrant's  ability to record,
process,  summarize  and  report  financial  date  and have  identified  for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and
         (b) any fraud,  whether or not material,  that  involves  management or
other  employees  who  have a  significant  role  in the  registrant's  internal
controls; and
  (6) The registrant's  other  certifying  officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether there were significant  changes in internal controls or
in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent  evaluation,  including any corrective  actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: November 21, 2002


                                       By:    /s/ Jon A. Darmstadter
                                           ----------------------------
                                           Jon A. Darmstadter, Chief Executive
                                           Officer
#### W. E. CONWAY, Appellant, v. Adrain MASON, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Oct. 28, 1955.

Rehearing Denied March 23, 1956.

■ Raymond Connell, Paris, Lovel H. Liles, Greenup, for appellant.

Jack R. Kibbey, Vanceburg, for appellee.

*627PER CURIAM.

This is a motion for an appeal from a judgment of approximately $700 in favor of the plaintiff in an action to recover under a farm-tenancy contract. We have considered the plaintiff’s contentions that the trial was improperly held at a special term of court; that the judgment was contrary to the evidence, instructions and verdict ; and that there was error in the admission and exclusion of evidence. We find no prejudicial error.

The motion for appeal is overruled and the judgment stands affirmed. .
Exhibit 32.2



Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, filed
herewith.



Armstrong Holdings, Inc. and

Armstrong World Industries, Inc.

(the
Companies)



Written Statement by Chief
Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I certify to the best of my knowledge and belief that the Companies Form 10-Q periodic
report containing their respective financial statements for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that information contained in that report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Companies as of that date.



|                                                             
|-------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                             
|/s/    F. NICHOLAS GRASBERGER
III                            
|F. Nicholas Grasberger III                                   
|Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer            
|Armstrong Holdings, Inc. and Armstrong World Industries, Inc.



Dated: October 27, 2005



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to the Companies and will be retained by the Companies and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-16-0000506

22-NOV-2016

09:06 AM
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 01578**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  x 

### 01578\01578_Checklist_102610_version34.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook



### 01578\01578_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 

### 01578\01578_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 

### 01578\01578_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 01578\01578_Part E.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 01578\01578_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file



### 01578\Certification Statement_01578.pdf Plant certification statement 

### 01578\Supporting Documentation\01578_Big_Cajun_1_Aerial.PDF Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 01578\Supporting Documentation\Big_Cajun_1_Water_Balance.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database
. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK>      0000727742
<NAME>     JSCE, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                                 11
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                         405
<ALLOWANCES>                                            9
<INVENTORY>                                           234
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      712
<PP&E>                                              2,104
<DEPRECIATION>                                        797
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      2,743
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 671
<BONDS>                                             1,624
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                                0
<OTHER-SE>                                           (235)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        2,743
<SALES>                                             3,295
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    3,295
<CGS>                                               2,753
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       2,753
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      307
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    175
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       462
<INCOME-TAX>                                          186
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   276
<DISCONTINUED>                                          6
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       (10)
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                          272
<EPS-BASIC>                                           .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         .00



</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 
SECTION 302 OF 
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Craig A.
Tooman, certify that:

| |    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 2 to the annual report on Form
 10-K of Enzon Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and                                                                                                                                                                                                   
| |    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
 statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
 make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
 statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
 this report.

|                     |     |                                       
|-------------------- | --- | --------------------------------------
|Date: June 30,
 2010 | By: | /s/ Craig A.
 Tooman                  
|                     |     |                                       
|                     |     | Craig A.
 Tooman                      
|                     |     | Executive
 Vice President, Finance and
|                     |     | Chief
 Financial Officer              
|                     |     | (Principal
 Financial Officer and     
|                     |     | Principal
 Accounting Officer)        

---
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

MATTHEW JOHN CASANOVA,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§ 

No. 08-10-00006-CR

Appeal from the

163rd District Court 

of Orange County, Texas 

(TC# B090255-R)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified 

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2014.

GUADALUPE RIVERA, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**@ROAD, INC.**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of @Road, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, CarolRice-Murphy, Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)     The Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)     The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

May 10, 2005

 
| /s/ Carol Rice-Murphy           |   |
|---------------------------------|--------|
|                            |
| Carol Rice-Murphy               |
| Interim Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
#### Joe HERNANDEZ et ux., Appellants, v. A. CASTILLO, d/b/a Mission Funeral Home, Appellee.

No. 13197.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Jan. 8, 1958.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 5, 1958.

*939James L. M. Miller, San Antonio, for appellants.

House, Mercer & House, James D. Cunningham, San Antonio, for appellee.

POPE, Justice.

Appellants filed a motion to retax costs on the plea that they complied with Rules 377 and 377-a, Vernon’s Ann.Tex.Rules of Civil Procedure. Appellee demanded a complete statement of facts. Our examination of the record shows that appellants filed with the clerk of the trial court a statement of the points on which they intended to rely on appeal. Rule 377-a. Appellants primarily complained about the finding on a single special issue which was answered against them. They stated that the finding was against the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence, and was supported by no evidence. Plowever, they complain further that defendant was guilty of gross negligence as a matter of law, and was also guilty of gross negligence for driving into a red signal light.

The testimony which appellants sought to omit from the statement of facts included that of a traffic engineer who testified about the sequence of signal lights. That was a disputed evidentiary matter. Appellants asked that the testimony of a commercial photographer and a witness named Luna be omitted. Their testimony described the interior of the ambulance in which Mrs. Hernandez was injured. In their designation of the portions of the statement of facts desired, appellants listed the subjects, including such items as the testimony of witness Benigna Hernandez, wherein she testified about the plaintiff’s being thrown from the stretcher inside the ambulance. If that be important for appellants, the full situation inside the ambulance was also important. Appellants requested that sixty-two pages of medical testimony be omitted. Since no points complained about injuries and damages, these should not be charged against appellants. Trousdale v. Texas & N. O. R. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 264 S.W.2d 489, 497, affirmed, 154 Tex. 231, 276 S.W.2d 242.

 We observe that the request for the abbreviated record calls upon the court reporter to study the statement of facts and pass judgment upon and select the evidence which relates to the numerous subjects itemized by appellants. This request imposes upon the reporter more that is his duty. His duty is to transcribe a correct record, but not to exercise judgment on what evidence is relevant and material to disputed points. That is the function of the courts. When one desires an abbreviated record, he should make his request by naming witnesses, or at most by asking for the direct or cross-examination portions of the testimony of named witnesses. Otherwise, in a case depending upon circumstances and inferences, the appellants impose upon the court reporter the burden of determining what is a proper inference or circumstance.

The costs of the sixty-two pages of medical testimony are adjudged against the ap-pellee, and the mandate should be recalled, corrected and amended to that extent only.
Industry Participants

Meeting on Spray Polyurethane Foam (SPF) Insulation

June 25, 2009

Name Affiliation

Steve Russell, Managing Director American Chemistry Council (ACC) Plastics 

Division

Karyn Schmidt, Legal Counsel ACC Plastics Division

Neeva-Gayle Candelori, Director ACC Center for the Polyurethanes Industry (CPI)

Kurt Riesenberg, Executive Director Spray Polyurethane Foam Alliance (SPFA)

Rick Duncan, Technical director SPFA

Jim Chapman, Director,

Product Safety and Regulatory Affairs

Bayer MaterialScience LLC;

Vice Chair, CPI Product Stewardship Issues 

Management Group

Brian Karlovich, Manager,

Industrial Hygiene Customer Services, 

Product Safety and Regulatory Affairs

Bayer Material Science;

Chair, CPI/SPFA Emissions Testing Protocol 

Workgroup

Bill Robert, Product Steward BASF Corporation

Jim Anderson, Vice President, Technical BASF Corporation

Larry Ash, SPF Contractor Ribco (member of SPFA)

Jean Kasakevich, Global EH&S Product 

Leader

The Dow Chemical Company;

Chair, CPI Product Stewardship Issues 

Management Group

Chris Bloom, Global EHS Product Leader Dow Building Solutions

Cynthia Graham, Toxicologist Huntsman International LLC

Monica Ntiru-Karamagi, Account Manager, 

Polyurethanes

Huntsman International LLC

Bob Duke, President Carolina Comfort Foam; Board Member of SPFA
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 498

To amend title XVI of the Social Security Act to deny SSI benefits for

individuals whose disability is based on alcoholism or drug addiction,

and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 6, 1995

Mrs. HUTCHISON introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend title XVI of the Social Security Act to deny

SSI benefits for individuals whose disability is based

on alcoholism or drug addiction, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. DENIAL OF SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME

4 BENEFITS BY REASON OF DISABILITY BASED

5 ON ADDICTION TO ALCOHOL OR DRUGS.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1614(a)(3) of the Social

7 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1382c(a)(3)) is amended by add8 ing at the end the following new subparagraph:
2

•S 498 IS

1 ‘‘(I) An individual shall not be considered to be dis2 abled for purposes of this title if (but for this subpara3 graph) alcoholism or drug addiction would be a contribut4 ing factor material to the Commissioner’s determination

5 that the individual is disabled.’’.

6 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 1611(e) of

7 such Act (42 U.S.C. 1382(e)) is amended by striking

8 paragraph (3).

9 (c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS RELATING

10 TO SAVINGS REALIZED.—From the amount which would

11 otherwise have been expended for fiscal years 1997, 1998,

12 1999, and 2000, but for the amendments made by this

13 section, there are authorized to be appropriated for each

14 such fiscal year—

15 (1) $95,000,000 for substance abuse treatment

16 services grants through the Federal Capacity Expan17 sion Program under section 1971 of the Public

18 Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300y); and

19 (2) $5,000,000 for the medication development

20 project of the National Institute on Drug Abuse to

21 improve drug abuse and drug treatment research.

22 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

23 this section shall apply to determinations made after the

24 date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ